continuing value of religion or to claim that the promise of religious freedom is a false promise. rather, it is reason to rededicate ourselves to the ideal enshrined in our constitution that all men and women have an inalienable right to choose for themselves what they believe and how they will practice their beliefs. as many of my colleagues know, i'm a descendant of the early mormon pioneers who, much like the pilgrims of the mayflower, fled persecution and discrimination by abandoning their homes for a new place of refuge. in the case of the mormon pioneers, they migrated many by foot and harsh conditions in a mass exodus across the great plains, over the rocky mountains and finally into salt lake valley and other settlements throughout the intermountain west. brigham young was a great colonizer and said people all over the west to settle the

west. one of the attributes of the mormon pioneers that i admire most is that after having endured mob violence, the martyr of their profit, the burning of their homes and places of worship and their forced flight into the american wilderness, they never lost their deep love of the united states and our constitution. i am really pleased, mr. president, that the people of utah remain a deeply patriotic people with profound respect and admiration for our constitution. in more recent years, our leaders have continued to reaffirm the importance of religious liberty in american life. in 1948, the united states was one of the original signers of the universal declaration of human rights which proclaims that every person has a right to freedom of religion, including the right to -- quote --

"manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship or observance." four decades later, in 1990, congress passed the religious freedom restoration act, or rfra, a crucially important piece of legislation that prohibits government from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion unless doing so is necessary to further a -- quote -- "compelling government interest." i was honored to be one of the principal authors of rfra and count its passage as one of the greatest moments of our time in this body. the bill passed the senate 97-3 and passed the house without recorded opposition, an enormous coalition of groups from across the ideological spectrum, including the aclu, the american

muslim council, the antidefamation league, the christian legal society, and the national council of churches, came together in support of the religious freedom restoration act. the breadth and depth of support for rfra was a sign of the enduring importance of religious liberty in american life. indeed, rfra demonstrated that religious liberty is the rare issue that unites americans of all stripes. one other recent marker of the continued significance of religious freedom in america is found, interestingly enough, in a bill aimed at protecting religious freedom in other countries. in 1998, congress unanimously passed the international religious freedom act which created an ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom within the state department and a bipartisan u.s. commission on international

religious freedom. the very first words of the act proclaim that -- quote -- "the right to freedom of religion undergirds the very origin and existence of the united states." this statement approved by all 535 members of congress and signed into law by the president encapsulates the overarching theme of my remarks today -- freedom of religion is central to the american ideal and to the history and development of our nation. from the earliest settlers to the revolutionary generation to the 19th century, to the modern day, religious freedom has been a driving force in american life. without the quest for religious liberty, there would be no united states. and without the continued guarantee of religious freedom, there can be no american ideal.

this is the fundamental rule in our society a fanned mental maxim, a -- a fundamental maxim, a fundamental part of the constitution, a fundamental belief for virtually everyone in america who has any religious inclinations at all. mr. president, i am proud to be a citizen of this great nation. i don't want to see religious liberty infringed upon, abused, not tolerated or done away with. we have to stand up for it. we have to make sure that everybody knows that we're not going to change one of the basic precepts of the american experience. one of the basic precepts from the beginning of this country to today. with that, mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk shall call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: mr. president, i ask the proceedings under the quorum call be vitiated.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coons: mr. president, it is with a heavy heart that today i rise to honor a friend and a true force for good in my home state of delaware who recently passed away but whose impact will be felt for many years to come. he was first and foremost a loving husband, father and grandfather. he was married to his wife, louise, for 68 years and had always been the rock of his family. he was incredibly proud of the many accomplishments of his son, jim jr., and his daughter, dr. patrice gilliam johnson after instilling in them his own passion of service to others. this man stood as a great leader in the first state. he was a veteran, a trail blazer, a mentor and to so many of us a trusted advisor and friend. mr. president, it was mr. james h. gilliam sr., or mr. g. as he was known to so many of us, who

left our world early wednesday morning on september 10. but before he left us, he made a profound impact on thousands of delawareans from every walk of life as a teacher, as a mentor, and a leader. his 95 years on this earth marked a life well lived. whether he was helping communities to heal and to grow together or helping to establish local and national organizations committed to social justice and equity, advising governors, members of congress or even the vice president, he never wasted an opportunity to make the case for our community. jim gilliam though actually didn't grow up in delaware. originally he was raised in baltimore and originally earned a bachelor's degree in sociology from oregon state and a master's degree in social work from howard university. from 1944-1948, he served his country with honor as a member

of the army's 92nd infantry division, the famed buffalo soldiers, where he became a decorated soldier during the second world war and beyond. he was actually recalled to duty again as a captain during the korean war, and for all his service, he received many awards , including two bronze star medals and the combat infantryman badge. i'll never forget the opportunity i had last year when i was able to help him retrieve a number of his missing or in several cases never awarded medals and to reissue them to him in a public ceremony. hundreds of delawareans from across our community came together at that event, hundreds whose lives he touched. i don't think there was a dry eye in the house. jim gilliam didn't come to wilmington for good until 1965 when he was hired as director of neighborhood and housing services for the greater wilmington development council. and short of after in 1968, he

was one of the few trusted to walk the wilmington streets promoting reconciliation during the riots in our city and the national guard occupation that lasted too long after the assassination of reverend martin luther king jr. mr. g. went on to hold positions of leadership with private sector and public sector entities, including vice president of the development company, leon weiner and associates, working to build affordable low-income housing, or as the director of new calf county's department of community development of housing where he served for many years. or in 1970 when governor peterson asked him to overall a then failing delaware family court. he touched, many lives through many institutions. and his constant involvement in the community led to many honors and accolades, but through it all he never rested on his laurels or slowed down in his efforts to serve others. in 1999, at an age when most

others would have been beginning retirement, he spent nine months raising a million dollars and securing hundreds of political, business and community supporters to launch the metropolitan wilmington urban league. the metropolitan wilmington urban league quickly rose in prominence and four years later received the national urban league's highest honor. since that time, as nwul chairman, jim led countless efforts in educational opportunity, economic development, supplier diversity, fighting racial profile and promoting equity in the arts. i was honored to be able to call him a mentor and an advisor. whether working with him 15 years ago when i was a newly elected county-wide official, or in recent years as a u.s. senator, i called on mr. g. time and time again when making tough decisions. his counsel wasn't always easy to receive. he pulled no punches but he always gave advice keeping the best interests of our community

in mind. i consider myself hugely blessed for the many opportunities when he shared his knowledge and his perspective of what we needed to do, but i am far from the only person who long relied upon his advice. mr. g. mentored countless young men and women from throughout the state and throughout his life and truly fostered an entire generation of civic and community leaders. one of them is paul kolistrom. for decades the executive director of west end neighborhood house, whose organization has supported thousands of youth and families in our city. a sentiment he recently related to me was that mr. g. was a man who could command the entire room but could also speak to you as if you were the only one in the room. another whose career he launched was jay street, now a county councilman and for decades executive director of hilltop lutheran, another important youth-serving organization in a tough neighborhood in our city.

but who was hired at the tender age of 22, some 40 years ago by mr. g. to help in preparation for school desegregation. jay recently commented -- quote -- he did not tell me it was a job for life, but he helped me to do it and to stay on the battlefield for justice these many years. any elected official or civic or community leader who ever sat down with mr. g. also knew that he meant business. he wasn't shy about telling you what you needed to do, what you needed to do better, what you needed to do to make an impact, whether it was fighting crime or investing in education or growing opportunity. he was better than anyone i have ever known. at delivering hard and pointed messages with a smile but with an intensity that made you listen and made you want to be a better man. the news journal, our home paper in wilmington, recently said --

quote -- "mr. gillian's fight to end racial justice, his efforts to correct the wrongs in our society and his willingness to mentor countless of others, sent forth thousands of ripples of hope that benefited us in the past and will serve us well in the future." i think that's exactly right. no problem was too small or insignificant for him to embrace and to attend to and to set right. he was wilmington's pied piper, leading all kinds of people into a better place. he was a natural leader and everyone who knew him is better off for it. my good friend, dr. tony allen, counted mr. g. as his best friend, and tony put it this way -- he was the conscience of our community. he often said it to me, that the great challenges of life are in the moments when it is our turn, when there is an opportunity for us to speak up or to be quiet, to rise up or to lie down, to

take arms or to take cover. most of us take the path of least resistance and miss the moment to make a difference in our own lives and the lives of others. he taught everyone to never, ever miss their moment, to act, to do the right thing, to make the world a better place. for 95 years, mr. g. never missed the moments that required him to act and to lead. he acted, he led and his legacy lives on not only in his family but among so many other people and institutions throughout our state that he touched. as for me, i will always remember jim gillian as a man who challenged me to be better. he viewed himself as a servant to our community, but he knew that his service alone wasn't enough. that's why his lasting legacy will be in those in whom he

inspired and whom he challenged to continue his work to follow his example to take our turn and our moment to fight for justice. thank you, mr. president. with that, i yield the floor. mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk shall call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? i ask unanimous consent that the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from michigan wishes to be recognized, i presume? mr. peters: i do indeed. the presiding officer: the senator is so recognized. mr. peters: thank you, mr. president. today i rise to speak about an issue that is of particular importance in my state of michigan, preventing an oil spill in the great lakes. the great lakes are part of the way of life in michigan, supporting our multibillion-dollar

agricultural, shipping and tourism industries. an oil spill on this precious resource would be catastrophic for michigan and all surrounding great lakes states. the great lakes are a critical drinking water source for 40 million people, and they contain 84% of north america's surface freshwater. vessels moving through the great lakes carry goods and passengers across the region and tourists in michigan, minnesota, wisconsin, illinois, indiana, ohio, pennsylvania and new york take in their beautiful coastlines each year. unfortunately, michiganders know all too well the devastating consequences of a pipeline break and what it can do to an economy and to its natural resources. five years ago, we experienced one of the largest inland oil spills in u.s. history with a six-foot break in the line 6-b pipeline in marshall, michigan. oil flowed for nearly 17 hours

before it was eventually shut off. spilling more than 800,000 gallons of heavy crude, contaminating 35 miles of the kalamazoo river and ultimately racking up a cleanup cost of $1.2 billion. an independent investigation after the spill concluded that the pipeline operators -- operators' inadequate procedures, as well as weak federal regulations all played a major role in this disastrous spill. the kalamazoo disaster, along with several other devastating pipeline explosions and spills, prompted a sweeping pipeline safety bill to be signed into law in early 2012. unfortunately, many of those rules and regulations have yet to be finalized by the pipeline and hazardous material safety administration or phmsa. i am very secondhand about the potential for future spills in

michigan, especially from a pair of 60-year-old pipelines carrying oil and natural gas like widz through the straits of mackinac, a place where lake michigan and lake huron meet. the straits of mackinac have been called the worst possible place for an oil spill in the entire great lakes basin. the strong currents in the straits tend to reverse direction every few days, and they move water at a rate at over ten times greater than the flow over niagara falls. a professor at the university of michigan used computer modeling to estimate that a worst-case scenario oil slick moving east through the straits could reach the shores of mackinaw city and mackinac island, our number one tourist attraction in just three hours. even more troubling is the fact that coast guard officials have acknowledged that current oil response techniques are not adequate for open freshwater, let alone freshwater with heavy, thick ice, the ice that we find

every season in the straits of mackinac. to make matters worse, response planned requirements for pipelines overseen by phmsa at the federal level are seriously lacking. information related to safety procedures, inspection reports and worst-case scenarios are unavailable to the public. even local emergency responders have been left in the dark. that's why i, along with my michigan colleague and good friend, debbie stabenow, introduced the pipeline improvement and preventing spills act, which includes several commonsense provisions to prevent pipeline accidents and protect the great lakes from catastrophic crude oil spills. our bill requires the u.s. coast guard and other agencies to independently assess oil spill response and cleanup activities and techniques for the great lakes. specifically taking into account the cleanup response of an oil spill under solid thick ice or ice-choked waters.

my legislation requires the department of transportation and the national academies to examine risk associated with pipelines in the great lakes and other waterways in the region, including an analysis of alternatives to the straits oil pipeline. this bill would also increase transparency by ensuring residents are notified about pipelines near their property and compels operators and regulators to make information publicly available. my legislation will also expand safety features to pipelines in high consequence areas, creating jobs for pipefitters and other professions while protecting dense population centers, drinking water and environmentally sensitive areas. finally, this bill will eliminate the future risk of a disastrous crude oil spill from tanker vessels on the great lakes. currently, crude oil is not shipped by tankers on the great lakes. however, it is increasingly being looked at as an option. given the difficulty of cleaning up heavy oil and open

freshwater, my bill will take that option off the table to ensure that we will not jeopardize our $7 billion great lakes fishing industry. the pipeline improvement and preventing spills act is endorsed and supported by a number of groups, including the michigan league of conservation voters, the pipefitters and plumbers and hvac text local 111, transfers city tourism, the great lakes fishing commission, mission steel head and salmon fishers manse association, national wildlife federation, and the alliance for the great lakes, just to name a few. the senate commerce committee, which has jurisdiction over pipeline safety, will be considering pipeline legislation in the next few weeks, and i look forward to building support for provisions in my bill. our country continues to record record highs in domestic energy production, but we must remain vigilant when it comes to energy transportation.

through strong oversight, leadership from the industry and technological innovation, i firmly believe that we can and we must continue to meet our energy needs in the safest way possible while preserving treasures like the great lakes for future generations. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk shall call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: i ask

unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent partisan senate proceed to h.r. 1624, which is at the desk, and that the bill be read a third time and the senate vote on passage of the bill with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: h.r. 1624, an act to amend title 1 of the patient protection and affordable care act and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. if there is no further debate on the measure, all those in favor say aye. opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill is passed. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i'd like to say a few words about the protecting affordable

coverage for employees, or pace, act. the pace act is smart legislation for my colleague, senator tim scott and my kentucky colleague over in the house, congressman guthrie that will help protect small and medium size businesses to give health care to their employees. it will help states define what constitutes a small business for health insurance purposes so as to provide health benefits for workers, lower premiums and reduce costs for taxpayers. let me repeat that. the pace act is a smart health care bill aimed at protecting workers benefits, lowering premiums and reducing costs to taxpayers. i hope colleagues will join me in applauding the bill's lead sponsors, our colleague senator tim scott, and his counterpart in the house, congressman brent guthrie for their hard work in

developing this very important proposal. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i want to join the majority leader in complimenting senator scott, a new member of the senate, on a significant accomplishment. it's not that easy to pass a bill in the house and in the senate. it takes a lot of work. there's good reason for that. we want to make sure that whatever passes in the senate has a thorough amount of consideration. senator scott has come to the senate as a member of the help committee. he's one of the most diligent members. i'm chairman of that committee. he took this initiative on his own working with members of the house where he formerly served, and he brought the bill to the senate. and within a few days he's got its unanimous approval. to me, that suggests the kind of united states senator that we need more of, someone who is quiet, effective, scholarly and gets results. so tim scott today, on behalf of

the people of south carolina and this country, has helped workers, helped benefits, lowered premiums. he deserves our thanks and he certainly earned my respect and the respect of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle by this significant accomplishment. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. scott: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i'd like to thank my cosponsor, senator shaheen, for working with me on the pace act without any question. i'd also like to thank senator alexander for his kind remarks and specifically thank our leader, senator mcconnell, for making sure this bill had an expeditious path to the floor of the senate. so often we hear in america that we can't get things done in the united states senate. and because of your leadership, senator mcconnell, and because of the good work of congressman guthrie on the house side and senator shaheen, we see that we're going to have an opportunity to make sure that small business owners all across america are not more negatively impacted by obamacare.

the decision that we have made today to move this legislation forward actually will save on average about 18% -- 18% -- of higher premiums that will not have to be paid by a -- by small business owners. senator mcconnell thank you for your leadership. senator alexander, thank you for your work with us on this have i i -- this very interesting process to get it to the floor as expeditiously as we have been able to do so. thank you for your hard work and dedication to this issue. mr. president, i also rise, sir, to speak about one of south carolina's most amazing heroes. greg alia. i'm here today, sir, to recognize that this young man, 32 years young, lost his life yesterday. yesterday morning officer greg

alia was killed in columbia, south carolina. i will tell you that greg served his community with distinction. yesterday afternoon i had an opportunity to talk with greg's wife, cassie. cassie's strength as she spoke with someone she's never met about the love of her life, about her husband, the father of her little boy, sal, was quite remarkable. her thoughtfulness in the tragic time really struck a chord with me and brought tears to my eyes as i listened to a wife describe the man that she loves, describe ap-- a community leader and someone who runs into danger when others are running away from danger. greg was born and raised -- he was a colombia native. he went to high school at rich

land northeast high school. he graduated from the university of south carolina. if greg was here, i would say go cots because we understand and appreciate the importance of south carolina, especially the colombia -- columbia footprint. more importantly after high school greg wanted to find out what life was about. he had the opportunity to be a production assistant working on movies like the latest version of "indiana jones" as well as one of my favorite movies frankly, "iran man -- iron man. greg was offered an opportunity with marvel comic books. he had the opportunity to stay out of the state and do amazing things and have a lot of fun. but his heart was beating to come back home to south carolina, to come back home to columbia, so that he could serve

the people of south carolina. i-- he wanted to be a police officer. he wanted to help people, mr. president. cassie told me that greg would have had no regrets. to think about those words from his wife on the day her husband was murdered. greg would have no regrets, because he was doing what he was made to do: protect people, serve people, sacrifice on behalf of people. greg was the embodiment of bravery, heroism. greg was doing what he was wired to do, and his wife was so clear and so passionate about his desire to be the first on the

scene, his desire to do everything possible to try to be helpful. greg, like so many police officers across this nation and without question across the great state of south carolina, loved serving people. and he did so. he did so with great integrity, with amazing character. he knew that his place in the world was making sure that his town, his city, our state, and our nation was safer because he put on the uniform every single day. and today, mr. president, we all stand in salute to greg and making a promise to his wife cassie that we will be there

with her as she raises her son sal. our prayers and our thoughts are with the family, mr. president. in closing, i would like to share a story that cassie told me yesterday afternoon as i had the chance to speak with her, the story brought a tear to my eye. and i hope as you hear the story it may even bring a smile to your face. greg worked the night shift, and when he would come home in the morning, sal was around six months old and he was learning to sit up. and in the morning when sal heard the police cruiser of his dad pull into the driveway, he would sit up and he would start smiling. and because he was feeding the milk, because of his big smile, it would just run down his face. think for just a moment of that

young man sal. he should have the opportunity to walk when he hears the cruiser coming into the driveway he should have the opportunity to yell "daddy" when he hears that cruiser coming in to the driveway. and so for that little boy and his mama cassie and for the forest acres community, i stand here today saying thank you for every single thing greg has done to make our state and our nation a better place to call home. i say thank you to greg for making the ultimate sacrifice that will never be forgotten.

and i say thank you to cassie for being such a powerful and strong woman in this amazing time of her need. and we should pray for cassie and sal. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: mr. president, i'm glad i got to be here and hear senator scott talk about that family and that hero and those who protect and defend us. in missouri, we've had over the last year a number of challenges on this front, and i was recently meeting with a group of african-american pastors, one of who was a pastor in ferguson, missouri, and talking about the hard work in being in law

enforcement. he said, you know, people who protect us, just like me, want to go home at the end of the day. and more than most of us, people that protect us leave every day with them and their families having the number-one focus: get home at the end of the day. and thank god they are willing to step forward and protect us, and also understand that it is a challenging job in a challenging time. i want to talk for a little bit, mr. president, about veterans health care, another challenge we face right now. we just, unfortunately, failed to move to debate the bill that would fund these programs, the bill that would increase funding for our veterans in areas like health care and benefits claims and processing claims, medical research, technology upgrades. for whatever reason we decided as a senate, and i don't think for a good one, that, no, we're

not going to debate that bill because all of these bills somehow collectively don't spend enough money, but we've talked about that. right now i want to talk for a few minutes about what we do need to be figuring out for our veterans. we learned a year ago that the veterans administration wait times were unacceptable. we learned it was likely that a number of lives have been lost, deaths have been caused because our veterans didn't get to see the doctor that they should have gotten to see. they didn't get the health care that they earned as veterans and deserved. this summer, after a year of working to make this better, we found out that the wait list of people waiting more than 30 days in the v.a. system to see a doctor was now 50% longer than it was last year. i thought about that a little bit and thought maybe it was just 50% longer than they were admitting it was last year. because one thing we found out was the wait list wasn't really

reflective of the real wait list, but the kind of progress that we would hope to make, we don't appear to be making yet. and the congress last year passed a law that would give veterans more choice. it was passed on a broad bipartisan basis. the senate came together. the congress came together to allow veterans to receive their health care in non-v.a. facilities, they couldn't get that first appointment within 30 days or if they were more than 40 miles away from a facility, we tried with some legislation this summer to put even more definition to that. i think clearly what the congress means is 40 miles from a facility that could do what you need to have done. if you need to have a heart stint put in, just being 40 miles from a facility where they might take your blood pressure doesn't do good enough. but we're going to continue to-to-work change veterans

health care in a way that gives veterans more choices, i hope. and what we find out is that this lapse in care is just not acceptable. we have to continue to keep focus on this. the act that we provided will create more choices. last week i had the -- really, one of the best conversations i'd ever had with anybody at the veterans administration when i talked to the under secretary of health, a new person in that job, dr. dave sulken, who spent his whole life managing hospitals outside the federal government. dr. sulken should know what he's doing. it certainly sounded to me like he knew what he was doing. and he understood the kinded of things that the congress needs to see for our veteran veteranse v.a. need to happen. the congress intends for

veterans choice to mean exactly that. not ways for the veterans administration to find obstacles to choice but veterans choice. if you're already a federal government health care provider, if you take medicare patients, you ought to be able to take veterans' patients. there shoul shouldn't be some lg second process you have to go through to become qualified so that the veteran can see a doctor, that the veteran would want to see; the veteran could go to a hospital the veteran would want to go to particularly if the v.a. can't meet that need. in fact, that conversation with dr. sulken was so good, for a little while i thought well maybe i've got the wrong number here. possibly i've actually not called the veterans administration, because i've never had a conversation like that where somebody at the veterans administration only knew what needed to be done but wasn't afraid to compete to get the health care needs of

veterans met. i've talked to all our veterans groups in missouri. there are many of them. certainly the two big veterans groups at their meeting this summer, i said, ming o many of e had great experience at the v.a. there are a lot of people at the v.a. that want to do everything they can to serve veterans in the best possible way. that's not good enough. all of you need to have had the best possible experience at the v.a., not necessarily the best outcome but the best possible outcome. all of our health care outcomes aren't what we'd want them to be, but they ought to be everything they possibly should be. veterans shouldn't have to drive past non-v.a. facilities that are equally capable of providing their health care or more capable of providing their health care. and we're going to continue to work to see that that happens. competition is a good thing. the best possible place to go for your health care is a good thing, and i want to come back

to that just briefly here in aempt movement but before -- in aempt mo. but i want to say this week on tuesday, i received a report that i asked for from the office of the veterans administration inspector general that said the allegations about what was happening at the st. louis facility, the cochran -- the john cochran facility, were absolutely true, that a number of files have been changed to indicate that the consultation had been completed before it was ever had. now, i assume that does a lot for your performance numbers if you check the completed box before you've seen the patient. but that appears to be what was happening. we learned that there's not enough oversight there. we learned that at least one psychiatrist had received performance pay based on productivity data. the only thing with the productivity data was it wasn't correct. easy to look good if you're not backing that up, i guess, with real facts.

it's not acceptable, it's unexus couldable, and then -- it's unexus couldable, and then we have a problem with leadership. at john cochran hospital in st. louis we've had seven temporary directors in two years. seven temporary directors in two years. no matter how good some of those may have been, having seven temporary directors is a lot like not having any director at all. if you know somebody is going to be there for 14 weeks or however long they're going to be there and no somebody else is coming, that doesn't produce a good result. there are 30 veterans centers that don't have permanent directors today. that's about 20% of all the facilities in the country, one in five of our v.a. medical centers doesn't have a permanent director, and we need to do better. supposedly the new administrator of the veterans administration

came in because he was a great manager. so far i don't see the results. if he needs more help from the congress to be a great manner, we ought to figure out a -- to be a great manager, we ought to figure out a way to give him more help. i believe competition is a good thing. the v.a. should be good at -- better than anybody else at a few things. nobody should be better than the v.a. at dealing with post-traumatic stress. nobody should be better than the veterans administration with dealing with the results of these i.e.d. attacks. because of that eye injury should be something that the v.a. is really good with and nobody should be better at the v.a. with dealing with prosthetics or spinal cord injuries. but frankly, mr. president, after that, as a doctor, you'd appreciate this, i really don't know after that why we would assume the v.a. would be the best place to specialize in almost anything else. and if it's not the best place

toarks ito go, it shouldn't be y place to go. the v.a. is probably not going to be likely to be any better than places you drive by as good, to get your heart stents in, to get even the basic health care of getting your blood pressure checked. our veterans deserve more choices. there are lots of reasons that the congress should and is concerned about the way the veterans administration is working. it's clearly time for the vrption to get focused not on -- it's clearly time for the veterans administration to get focused on not what's good for the veterans administration but for our veterans. the report i got this tuesday unfortunately verified almost any concern that people have had, and we need to insist, mr. president, that that be better. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware.

mr. carper: i'm pleased to follow my colleague and friend from missouri. and i just want to mention -- i didn't come to the ploor to talk about what we're doing for our veterans. let me take a minute or two to talk about what we're doing that we can actually be proud of and maybe to touch on a couple of areas where we could do a better job. i am a veteran myself, a navy shipman for four years, went on to become a naval flight officer. i served in southeast asia as a naval flight officer and then as a p-3 aircraft officer until the end of the cold war. i loved serving and got an education, undergraduate and graduate school, and so very privileged to have the opportunity at the end of my active duty tour to use a v.a. hospital very close to wilmington, delaware. i remember the first time i went

there, i was there for some dental benefits. it turned out that my dentist -- a young dentist told me that the morale was pretty bad and didn't do good work. they had 16-bed wards. they didn't do much in the way of outpatient surgery. the pharmacy was a mess. i said, wouldn't it be great to be in a position to do something about that and transform this place so it could be a facility that we could be proud of? and today i am. do they do everything perfectly, no, they don't. but we have two satellite operations in the dover area. we have -- in the middle of our state, in succes susse expvment, i'm very proud of the health care facilities. we call them outpatient clinics. the reason i mention that is because i was also eligible coming out of the vietnam war,

eligible along with other vietnam veterans for education. the g.i. bill, we received in my generation about $250 a month. and at the time i was happy to have it. continue to fly with my reserve squadron for another 18 years and -- but it was great to have that benefit. the other -- a couple weeks ago a congressional delegation -- senator coons, and a couple congressmen sent off some national guardsmen to afghanistan. we had about 1,000 people. a big sendoff. i told them, when you come back, you're going to be eligible for a g.i. benefit. they won't get $250 a month. but if they serve a total of three years active duty, here'ss what they're eligible for. they can come back and go for free to the university of delaware, delaware state

university, wilmington university, pretty much any public college, university in america free. tuition paid for, books paid for, fees paid for. and if they need tutoring, that's paid for as well. on top of all that they get a housing allowance, a housing allowance. it's $1,500. $1,500. not a year, a month. $1,500 a month. we received a g.i. benefit of $250. not surprising -- this is at the end of the world war ii when my dad and uncle served, in the korean war where my uncle served, at the end of the vietnam war, scam artists emerged to try to take advantage of the g.i. and try to separate the cash value of their g.i. benefit from the g.i. and sometimes not to provide them with a very good education. not to provide them with a very good education. really take advantage of the g.i. and taxpayers.

about 1952 something called the 8515 rule was passed where at least 15% of the students enrolled in a for-profit college or university or program -- at least 15% of those enrollees had to be there, their tuition paid for, by some source other than the federal government. other than the federal government. and as it turns out, time went by and the 8515 rule became the 9010 rule so that 90% of those who were enrolled had to be there -- paid for by the federal government. but another 10% had to be there paid for by someone other than the federal government. over time, that changed so that 90% of the revenues of a for-profit college or university could come from the federal government but not the other

10%, except for the money that came from the g.i. bill to a college or university or from tuition assistance for people on active duty. that didn't count against the 90%. so at the end of the day, a for-profit college could get 100% of their revenues from the federal government. i don't think that's a good thing. and a system that was designed editorially on with the 85-15 ruling, later the 90-10 rule that tried to ensure there was some market forces that ensured that they get a good education. make sure they're treated the way we would want to be treated. there is a huge loophole, the 90-10 loophole. we need to fix it. my colleagues that talked here earlier today, others, including the senator from missouri, about the quality of v.a. health care. we're providing the best g.i. bill by far in the history of our country. and for too long a number of our

for-profit colleges and universities and post secondary training programs are taking advantage of g.i.'s, taking advantage of taxpayers. and it should stop, and it should stop. having said that, p.s., there are a number of for-profit colleges and universities and training programs that do a very good job. they're not all bad actors. some of them wear white hats. for them, good for you. for those who aren't, you need to change your ways. you need to change your ways. i didn't come here to talk about that but in the spirit of making sure we're looking out for our veterans, i felt compelled to mention that. i want to -- let's take a look at some posters here this afternoon. the first one looks like -- could look like my state, probably look like the presiding officer's state, look like missouri, it could look like any of the states that our pages are from.

but this is a traffic jam, and this is a traffic jam that occurs almost every day -- almost every business day, and frankly a lot of weekends, in highways across america. from coast to coast. we spend a lot of time sitting in traffic. we spend a lot of time sitting in traffic. there's actually quite a substantial cost to our nation's economy. the cost is estimated to be this year about $160 billion a hit on a national economy. i'll talk here in just a second about what that includes. part of the waste as reflected in our nation's economy, it says 82 hours wasted in big city traffic. that's per person, per driver on average across the country in big cities. people sitting, pretty much sitting in traffic. they can be in a minivan.

they can be in a small car, a large car. they can be in a truck. but we're talking about 82 hours in a year just pretty much sitting in traffic. the average across the country when you take in more rural parts of the country and suburban areas, the average is 42 hours. that's a whole lot of time and time is money. just think about that. let's see what we have, another poster here. here's one with a sense of humor. this is not delaware. this is not delaware. i'm not sure where this is. for those who can't read this it says, the traffic sign that's up here, it says you'll never get to work on time. haha. you see the orange cones out there. someone had a good sense of humor there. my guess is folks may be working on a project had a good sense of humor. my guess is that for a moment it made the drivers smile. but not for long, especially if they sat in traffic long enough. and 82 hours a year, that's long

enough. let's see what's next. oh yeah, not only do we -- is it expensive or a waste of time and money for us as individuals to sit in traffic for a long time, another part of the cost is caused by potholes and other problems with our roads. i think this is probably a bridge. it looks like it might be a bridge. but there's a construction project someplace, and here is a pothole. that's a bad pothole. in other parts, not so much in delaware but i see in other states at least that bad and worse. what's going to happen, vehicles will come along, they'll hit that pothole and it may damage their tires. they may have to replace a tire or two. they may have to get their front end realigned, and that costs money. how much? believe it or not, just like texas a&m has figured out on average we waste 42 hours a year

as drivers, texas a&m comes up with somebody else spent the time to figure out how much we spend on cars and trucks, in order to fix them during the year because of potholes like this and other problems. the surface of the roads we travel on, surface of the bridges we travel on. over $350. i've seen a range of anywhere from $350 a year to $500 a year. let's say it's just $350 a year, that's a lot of money. that's part of the cost of damage to our economy. the other thing i would say is our economy as we all know is a just in time economy. i'll give you a good example. we have a port in wij -- wilmington right on the delaware river. as you come up the delaware bay it becomes the delaware river. the port closest to the atlantic

ocean on the delaware river is part of wilmington. ships are coming there throughout the day, night and weekend. the ships don't come in and spend a week. ships don't come in the port of i wilmington and spend a day. they may come in for four hours or six hours. but they're there and then they're going. but when a ship is sitting in the port of wilmington or any other port, the shipper, whoever owns that boat is not making any money. so they want to be in and they want to be out, and that's the way they do their business. it's important for whoever is coming in and using them by truck, to bring goods, to put on that ship to send around the world, there may be a very short window of time to get there. and if you're stuck in traffic, the kind of traffic we saw early on, you're stuck in traffic early on, you may miss that window when the ship is in the port, whether it's wilmington or some other port.

that's another reason why in a just in time economy, why these kinds of dlees -- delays meantime is money. another one with a sense of humor. it looks like a husband and wife driving in their car and his wife saying finally someone fixed that pothole. there's the pothole. there's a car down in there. the guy driving looks like he's having a bad day. not just a bad hair day. a very bad day. a little humor there, not if you happen to be this guy and frankly not if you happen to be this guy. if you're running along a pothole like this the guy has to spend $350 to get it going again. what do we have next? let's see. you see all this and we're not making this stuff up. there is a national association, i think it's civil engineers, people who spend their life

working on transportation projects, and they have every year for years they have given us a grade in what kind of shape our roads, highways, bridges, transit systems are in. they can give an a, a-plus, a-plus,a-minus, a b, b-plus, b-minus. they can give a c, c-plus, c-minus. the last couple of years we've been around d, d-plus. i think we're going down rather than up. everybody knows, just about everybody who drives in our country these days knows we're not investing in our roads, bridges, highways, transit system. why do we need to? travel around the rest of the world and you see the countries we compete against, they do. they do. one of the components of sort of investments we need to make in our country in order to strengthen our economy, to

better ensure jobs are going to be created or preserved, there is a lot of things we can do to make sure that businesses have access to capital, make sure that the cost of energy is affordable, the cost of health care is affordable, make sure that we have public safety, make sure that the people that are being -- coming out of our schools can read, write, have the skills that are needed in the workforce. another big one is make sure we have the ability to move people and goods where they need to go when they need to go. and here's our current plan. it's pretty well summed up in this sign. it's meant to be funny, and i suppose it is. but i love this -- this is part of the plan down here, like good luck. good luck. and that ain't a plan. that's not a plan that's going to get us where we need to go as a nation. i think we have one more poster. let's take a look at that. for those who may not be able to

read this, there is a big traffic jam. it seems like a lot of people are saying this -- see those little bubbles there. i'd pay to be anywhere but here. i'd pay to be anywhere but here. i believe -- treasury of delaware, i had a chance to serve in the house for awhile and then as governor was very much involved in the national governors association trying to make sure we invested in our transportation infrastructure across the country. and in the senate, i sat on the environment and public works committee last congress and was privileged to serve as chair of the senate subcommittee on transportation and infrastructure. so i thought a fair amount about these issues. i believe that we have for years -- you think about the way we pay for roads, highways, bridges, transit. what was used for years is a user pay system.

the people, the businesses that use our roads, highways, bridges and transit system, we pay for them. we pay for them. and in some places we sort of have gotten away from that, and there's an unwillingness to ask people to pay for what they want to use. everybody wants to have better transportation system, and we're asked to pay for that. when i was governor of delaware i asked for modest increases, just a couple of cents on the fee for gas and diesel tax. not a whole lot was raised, but we cobbled together money from other user fees and were able to fund, transportation funding. here in the nation we have -- we have had for a number of years a transportation trust fund. most of the money for that transportation trust fund comes from user fees.

two primary user fees are gas tax. it's been about 18.3, 18.4 cents since i think 1993. it's been a little over 18 cents since 1993. it hasn't changed. the cost of concrete has gone up. the cost of az asphalt has gone up. the cost of steel has gone up. the cost of labor has gone up. what hasn't gone up is the user fee we're asking people to pay to have better roads, highways, bridges and transit systems, transit to get people off of our roads, highways and bridges. if we do that, we can save a lot of money. the -- our diesel, we have a tax on our diesel, federal tax. it's been about 24 cents per gallon. it's been that low since 1993. 1993. and again concrete, asphalt,

steel, labor have automatic gone gone -- labor have all gone up but we've not changed in 22 years the user fee on diesel tax. the money we collect from gas and diesel tax, it doesn't go to pay for health care. it doesn't go to pay for wars. it doesn't go to pay for agriculture or other things. the money we collect from these user fees goes to pay for roads, highways, bridges and to some extent for transit systems to get people off of our roads, highways and bridges so the rest of us have extra room to maneuver. i just want to say we -- i'll go back in time. thomas jefferson said a lot of things worth remembering. one of the things, my favorite jefferson quotes is this: if people know the truth, they won't make a mistake. if the people know the truth, they won't make a mistake. the truth is we're not investing in our transportation

infrastructure in this country the way our competitors are and the way that we ought to be. and to do so doesn't mean we have to raise, like in some places we have gas taxes and diesel taxes, $4 or $5 a gallon. we don't have that. it's 18 cents and 24 cents for gas and diesel combined. if we had increased them just by the rate of inflation in the past, the gas tax would be not 18 cents. it would be maybe closer to twice that. diesel tax wouldn't be 24 cents. it might be closer to twice that. but we haven't changed it. we haven't changed it at all. here's where we pay for transportation improvements, we don't pay for them. we don't raise anything in some cases. we simply go out and borrow money from the transportation trust fund, borrows money from the federal general fund. and when the general fund runs out of money, we borrow money from around the world like china

and other places and replenish the general fund, use that to replenish the transportation trust fund. i think that's pretty foolish, especially to be beholden to folks in china for our transportation system. that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. maybe it doesn't to you either. other things we do, we have these, i call them cats and dogs, some sleight of hand. one of the more recent examples, pension smoothing, where i won't get into how that works, but just an awful idea to use -- muck with people's pensions in order to be able to provide for road improvements. it doesn't make much sense. another thing we do is maybe raise t.s.a. fees when people want to fly. and instead of using that to make our friendly skies safer, we put a little bit of that money in roads, highways and bridges. or maybe we sell some of the oil

we have in our strategic petroleum reserve, where we pay a lot of money several years ago to buy gas, buy oil when it was expensive, now people think they're being smart to sell that oil out of this strategic reserve when prices are low to help pay for roads, highways and bridges. remember the saying buy high, sell low? or buy low, sell high? this is really buy high and put that oil in a strategic reserve and then sell low. that's insanity. we can do a lot better than this. for a number of years some of us have encouraged us to do what we've been doing for years to actually be honest and pay for the improvements to our roads, highways and bridges. and that is to raise the user fees. not all at once. not by $1 or $2 or anything like that. but by four cents a year. four cents a year starting next

year for four years. and then after that index them -- index the fees, the taxes on gas and diesel according to to rate of inflation. if we did that, we would have, i think, a combined state and federal user fee, if you will, for gas. i think it would be at that time 53 cents, maybe about 53 cents. compared to what? compared to pretty much any other developed nation in the world. we would have the lowest. we would have the lowest combined federal and state and local user fees on gas and diesel. the lowest as far as i can tell. we can actually double that. we're not going to do that. we can double it again, we're not going to do that from 53 to $106 per gallon. i don't suggest we do that. but if we we do, we'd be among the lowest compared to the rest of the world. i'll close with this.

sometimes we say, well, 16 cents, what could i buy with that? you know, if i didn't have to pay four years from now an extra 16 cents whether i buy a gallon of gas, what would that up to in a week for the average driver? and i'll tell ya, here's -- here's -- this maybe brings it home. for basically the price of a cup of coffee -- a cup of coffee a week, that is the cost that would be incurred by the average driver. even after the full increase, the full four cents times four years. that's what it's worth. that would be the out-of-pocket expense to the average driver, the price of a cup of coffee a week. we saw earlier some of the these tracks that people are sitting in traffic on average across the country 42 hours per year.

we saw some of the graphics of the potholes here and we're reminded that the cost of damage to our cars, trucks, vans is anywhere from $350 to some estimates as high as $500. and we're -- we're learning that for the price of a basically a cup of coffee, to invest that money instead -- people would still drink coffee but to put that in our roads, highways, bridges and transit system, we can have a transportation system we can be proud of. and those four pennies add up over time and they add up over the next 10 years to $220 $220 billion to invest, to have for investments. so instead of having roads with potholes that look like the one that i saw and the kind of traffic jams that we saw here from coast-to-coast, we can have a transportation system that we can be proud of again in this country. we just have to have the will to do it. the will to do it. and again, thomas jefferson said

, reminded us that things that are worth having are worth paying for. and if people know the truth, they won't make a mistake. roads, highways, bridges, transit, that's worth paying for. and the truth is, it doesn't have to break us, it doesn't have to break our banks or our budgets and we can have those -- those roads, highways, bridges again that we can be proud of. i hope we'll do that. senator durbin, dick. mr. durbin: -- dick durbin and i from illinois have written legislation to basically do that. to raise the user fee for four cents a year for four years, at a time when the price of oil is lower than it's been in some time and is expected to stay low for the foreseeable future. and if the iranians work with us and the other five negotiations that negotiated the iranian agreement in order to gradually lift sanctions from the -- from

their economy, they will be able to start producing oil and selling it across the world. as long as they agree not to create a nuclear weapon, we're going to make sure they don't. but it turns out iran is the number four nation in the world in their oil reserves. think about that. number four. and we live in a world that's awash in oil and very soon the iranian oil is going to be added to the oil that's available to to -- to consume, to use. on this planet of ours. all that oil will not push the price of oil or gasoline or diesel up. it will push it down, supply and demand. let's keep that in mind. and with that, i've spoken for long enough and i see one of my colleagues has been waiting patiently and i will yield the floor to him and bid you all adieu. have a good weekend. thank you.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: mr. president, i'd like to say a few words about the bill that we voted on this afternoon and put it into a broader context. this was the bill to begin the vote and debate on the military construction and veterans affairs appropriations bill which passed out of committee in a strong bipartisan vote out of the appropriations committee. you know, there's been a lot of talk, a lot of stories in the media over the last several weeks about the government running out of money, a government shutdown and a lot of those stories -- a lot of those stories, the narrative talked about the republican party being the one focused on a government shutdown. the media actually loves this

narrative but you know, mr. president, like a lot of narratives in the media, they're not always so accurate. so i wanted to kind of give what i think is the much more accurate story of what's really going on here in the senate. mr. president, many of us are new senators here. the presiding officer, yourself, myself included. 13 of us actually. and a lot of us came to washington, a lot of us actually ran for the senate because we were fed up. we thought the american people were fed up. we knew they were fed up with the dysfunction of the federal government. there's a lot of examples of that. you know many of them. in the last several years, we've run the debt of our nation from $10 trillion to $18 trillion. think about that.

looking at these interns here, that's going to be their responsibility. we don't -- if we don't get ahold of that. $18 trillion. in an economy that won't grow, what we call the new normal here, 1.5% to 2% g.d.p. growth. no budget. the previous senate was not even passing a budget, the most basic function of government. households do it, businesses do it, states do it. the federal government was not even taking the time to pass a budget. no appropriations bills, no spending bills out of the appropriations committee. these were all signs of a government -- of a federal government that was not working, that was dysfunctional. so we came with a new majority, new leadership committed to change this. we meant to change this. we were very focused on changing this. and we have begun in a serious way to do that. what are we doing? first, we passed a budget.

hadn't happened in years but we did that. a lot of hard work. my hat's off to the budget committee. you know, we took what was the president's budget, 10-year budget, and slashed that by $5 trillion to $7 trillion in terms of spending. didn't raise taxes. then next step, what the government's supposed to do, next step, we started to work on appropriations bills in the appropriations committee. again, very hard work, very bipartisan work. and for the first time in years, the appropriations committee passed out 12 appropriations bills to fund our government. and many of these, most of these were very bipartisan. let me give you a few examples. agriculture appropriations bill passed out of the appropriations committee 28-2. doesn't get much more bipartisan than that.

commerce-justice-science appropriations bill, 27-3. energy and water, 26-4. this is strong bipartisan work in the appropriations committee. our government's getting back to work. the dysfunction that had previously existed here for many, many years -- none of this was happening -- is going away and we are working. and very importantly, in terms of appropriations bills p, the defense -- appropriations bills, the defense appropriations bill passed out of the committee 27-3. and the military construction and veterans affairs appropriation bill, 21-9. so passed a budget, passed appropriation bills. so far, so good. the senate is working again. we're back to regular order. we're moving forward in a bipartisan way. very bipartisan. we're doing the work of the government.

it's what the american people wanted, asked for and we're starting to deliver on that as part of our promises last fall. so what's the next step? well, the next step is to take these appropriation bills and bring them down to the senate floor for a vote. shouldn't be a problem, particularly because the bills that i'm talking about are so bipartisan. they came out of committee with such strong bipartisan numbers and support. so that's what we're doing. that's what we've done. that's what we're supposed to do. that's what the american people want us to do. and we started to prioritize, where should we begin? turn on the news. i think most people know where we should begin. funding our military. funding our military. the men and women protecting us, men and women -- the men and women risking their lives on a

daily basis for our freedom. so we brought the defense appropriations bill down to the senate floor. and again, we certainly need that. one gets the sense that the world is careening into chaos. we need a strong military. we need to fund our military. shouldn't be an issue. passed out of committee, strong bipartisan vote, everybody likes to make sure we have a strong military. so what happened? we brought -- we brought it to the floor of the united states senate and it was filibustered not one but two times. mr. president, that is irresponsible. filibustering the defense of our nation, defunding the support

for our troops. so that brings us to what we did today. we turned to another appropriations bill, military construction and veterans appropriations. again, a very bipartisan bill. very focused building military infrastructure throughout our country, throughout the world and one of the most sacred responsibilities of this body, of our government, taking care of our veterans. this is a huge issue for my state, mr. president. alaska boasts the highest number of veterans per capita of any state in the nation and we need to take care of our vets. so what happened today? seems pretty noncontroversial. appropriations bill coming to the floor. it was a very bipartisan bill.

filibustered again. filibustered again. so, mr. president, in the past few weeks, we've had critical votes to fund our military, to fund our troops, to fund our veterans and we can't move forward. what's going on here? what is going on here? i really don't know. it's hard to say. i sit on the armed services committee. i sit on the veterans' affairs committee. these are two of the most bipartisan committees in the senate. i know all of my colleagues, both sides of the aisle truly respect, truly support our troops and our veterans and truly want what's best for them. i recognize that. then why is the other side filibustering the funding of these incredibly important

bills? in essence, defunding our troops and defunding our veterans. i think the american people deserve answers on this. i think our veterans deserve answers on this. i think our troops in harm's way deserve answers on this. one thing for sure, mr. president, the next time the media wants to write a story with the narrative about a government shutdown, they ought to ask those who voted against these bills to even start debating them why they're defunding these critical troops and veterans. they need to ask those who are voting against these bills, filibustering these bills, why they're leaving our troops and our veterans in the lurch. mr. president, beer doing our job -- mr. president, we're doing our job, what the american people asked us to do, demanded from us last november.

they wanted us to pass a budget. like they do. even though we hadn't done that in years. we did. they wanted us to pass appropriations bills and to work in a bipartisan manner to get these bills through the committee, all 12 to fund the government. we did. and they wanted us to prioritize our spending and our activities and our focus in terms of government funding on the things that matter most -- our military and our veterans. and we did. i have no idea why our colleagues on the other side of the aisle refused to move with us in terms of the next step. the american people want the next step. they want the senate to vote on these bipartisan bills that fund our military and fund our veterans, and today once again

we're seeing this not happening. and i think the american people need answers, i think our troops need answers, and i think our veterans need answers on why it's not happening. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. sullivan: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk shall call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed

with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that at 5:00 p.m. on monday, october 5, the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination -- calendar number 138, that there be 30 minutes of debate on the nomination equally divided in the usual form, and that upon the use or yielding back of time, the senate vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination. that following disposition of the nomination, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. that no further motions be in order to the nomination, that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. so ordered. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res.

276, which was submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 276, designating the week beginning october 18, 2015, as national character counts week. the presiding officer: is there objections to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 4:00 p.m. monday, october 5. following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business until 5:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. finally, that following morning

business, the senate proceed to executive session as under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 4:00 p.m. on monday. a minute, but i want to start with what i have to say right now by reading a direct quote from the current house majority

leader. and we're told he's going to be the next speaker of the house of representatives. listen to this one. speaking about the benghazi committee, here's what he said. congressman mccarthy told fox news, "everybody thought hillary clinton was unbeatable, right? we put together a benghazi special committee to select a, t committee. what are her numbers today? her numbers are dropping." i might add, the person doing the interviewing, good job. but, mr. president, there you have it. according to the odds-on favorite future speaker of the house, the benghazi special committee was put together to hurt hillary clinton politically, to make her poll numbers drop. we've been saying this all along, but we have had now a gaffe, but it wasn't a slipup.

he just told the truth. this is evidence of what we have been saying. the again gasaying it is no surprise that congressman mccarthy's own completion are now back-pedaling from his comments. elections are going to be in a he caweek. they better take a look at who they are going to put in as speaker. republicans have taken a national tragedy -- four americans were killed -- and turned it into the cheapest political farce imaginable. this is a shaism the ver shame. the very notion that a house committee was used a as political tool is appalling. they spent almost $5 million on the select committee, dollars spent on this right-wing political hatchet job. but that's not all. in addition to this select committee, they have had six other committees investigating this. the untold millions of dollars

spent on this, whose money are they spending? they're spending taxpayer dollars. we hear my friend make references to how bad it is that we're concerned about non-defense stuff. yeah, we are. we are concerned about non-defense stuff. we think that the non-defense part of this budget should also get some recognition. we're concerned about the f.b.i., the federal court system. we're concerned about the drug enforcement administration, all the immigration officials that need help. we're concerned about our forests which are burning down. we're concerned about the situation we have where we don't have enough money to build our highways, to repair our highways. yeah, we're concerned about tha

remarks, but first i heard a few minutes ago about a shooting at a community college in oregon.

and i just want to say something about that. first, all of our hearts here in the senate go out to the victims in that shooting and to their families and to their friends and loved ones at umpqua community college in oregon. these students at community colleges, they're often young people who are getting an education to prepare themselves for a future. very often they're people midcareer who are going back for training to get the kind of skills that senator coons talked about and a new career.

and the resurgence of manufacturing in the united states and in my state, minnesota, really should inspire us to invest more in training more americans for these good manufacturing jobs. i don't know what the focus of umpqua is, but, again, i believe i speak for everyone in this body that our heart goes out to all the victims and their